|
|
|
|
|
by BitwiseFool
1819 days ago
|
|
Ranked Choice Voting is seen as a panacea to two party politics and polarization. Only time will tell if it actually helps this. But no matter how you feel about it, RCV is demonstrably more complicated than FPTP. And to address that complexity you need more bureaucrats, volunteers, software, and machines to tally and certify the results. In every step of the process you introduce more opportunities for error, and if we're being honest, fraud. And, New York City is well known for machine politics, corruption, and cronyism. |
|
RCV in the US: "2 states, 1 county, 26 cities outside of Utah and 23 Utah cities" https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_u...
Approval in the US: Fargo and St. Louis
RCV campaigners hijacked public perception of the science. As an analogy, people don't believe in global warming because they have evaluated the evidence; they believe it because the scientists tell them to. RCV campaigners skipped the scientists and manufactured a false consensus around RCV. So RCV is what the common person associates with voting method reform.